‘Journalists’ Want To Control The Press
Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz [sic], a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” …
Mind you, National Public Radio is considered by many to be the epitome of an objective mainstream news outlet. (Despite it being controlled by the government.)
But regarding Ms. Spitz, sometimes there really is truth in labeling.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Bloomberg is deemed to be mainstream media, even a somewhat conservative site, since it is market oriented.
Notice the ubiquitous trotting out of “Godwin’s law,” “teabaggers” and “Brownshirts.” Their originality speaks for itself. As does their open-mindness and tolerance. Their ‘liberalism.’
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed.
For the record the “organized labor group” is, surprise, surprise,
Change To Win, a
SEIU front. Isn’t the ‘diversity’ on the left simply amazing?
“They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified [sic] into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency.
Not “anti-cosmopolitan”! Anything but that!
Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).” …
In other words, the ‘bitter clingers.’
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives…
Funny, but that is exactly what Mr. Obama always assumes, as well.
In any case, you must not speak against the Revolution. Or, rather, the Ruling Class. ‘Question Authority’ only applies when it’s someone you don’t like who is in authority. Someone who is not in the Ruling Class.
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” …
Some people even consider the UK’s Guardian to be a real newspaper. Of course, Great Britain does not enjoy a First Amendment.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Perhaps, Mr. Scherer is unaware that the US does have a First Amendment. Of course he and his colleagues would be only too happy to give up a free press if it meant that their side could decide what can or can’t be printed or uttered.
By the way, even Time Magazine used to be considered a mainstream publication. In fact, they used to be thought of as a news magazine.
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” …
Thus sayeth “a law professor at UCLA.”
John Judis [sic], a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Somewhere Joseph Goebbels must be smiling.
But one of the most surprising aspects of all of this is just how un-self-aware these self-selected ‘intellectuals’ are. The aforementioned Mr. Goebbels once observed, “think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
These Solons don’t even realize that they are being played like a Hammond organ. Perhaps they enjoy it too much.
After all, throughout history there has never been any shortage of ‘journalists’ to do the bidding of dictators.
As Aristotle once noted (paraphrasing), ‘there are some people who are just natural born slaves.’ Perhaps that explains why some ‘journalists’ simply cannot abide the sight of free men standing upright on their own two feet.
‘Journalists’ Want To Control The Press | Sweetness & Light
__________________
...her tattoo said carpe diem which I thought ironic considering her epilepsy...
"WHAT THIS COUNTRY REALLY NEEDS IS MANY MORE UNEMPLOYED POLITICIANS !!"
‘Journalists’ Want To Control The Press 
Linear Mode
